Monday, January 26, 2009

In my previous post I wrote about the legitimacy of criticizing the President. I wrote that, if somebody thinks that a President's policies would do harm to the country or are immoral, they have a duty to speak up. Nobody should be condemned merely because they criticize the President – though they may be condemned if their criticism is grounded on false statements and intellectually reckless reasoning.

However, a couple of people have made comments about the Obama administration that truly do count as un-American . . . even anti-American. Rush Limbaugh has said that he hopes that Obama fails.

So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

I have said that it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the President’s policies where one has good reason to believe they will do harm to the country. However, I want you to pay close attention to the difference between the following two statements.

(1) I hope that the engines in the airplane will fail and that the plane will crash.

(2) I fear that the engines of the airplane will fail and the plane will crash.

When a person says that they fear the possibility of a particular outcome, they are saying that they view the outcome as something that there are many and good reasons to avoid. They are saying that they do not want that outcome to be realized and, because of this, they are willing to work to prevent those outcomes.

On the other hand, when a person says that they hope that a particular outcome will be realized, they are saying that the outcome is one that they desire. They are saying that they are willing to work to help realize that outcome and are unwilling to take any action that might prevent that outcome from being realized.

Rush Limbaugh did not say that he fears that Obama's policies will fail. They explicitly said that he hopes that those policies will fail - that they want those policies to fail.

Which means that Limbaugh is resporting that he is willing to help bring about that failure. He is saying that the he would view any news of failure as a good thing, as something that he hopes to see, like somebody might hope to see smoke coming from a jet engine that he hopes will fail in flight.

He hopes that you lose your job.

He hopes that your business goes under.

He hopes that your retirement dwindles away into nothing and you are forced to live your final years in abject policy.

He hopes that America itself is forced to declare bankruptcy.

He (unlike the rest of us) does not fear that these things might happen. He hopes that these things will happen.

It is not propaganda – it is a matter of logical necessity – that a person who hopes that such things will come about are anti-American.

Why would Hannity and Limbaugh want such a thing? A reasonable hypothesis is that their egoes are of such a size that, if given a choice between promoting America and promoting themselves, they would give anything for an opportunity to promote themselves. Rather than a willingness to take a hit for the sake of the country, they would prefer it if the country takes a hit that would benefit them.

In short, they are too much pro Hannity and pro Limbaugh to have any room left for being pro America.

Note: This is not the same as saying that Hannity and Limbaugh "hate America". This no more implies that they "hate America" than a cook making an omlett "hates eggs". They see the breaking of the eggs (the breaking of America) as a mere means to an end. They do not hate that which serves as a means - they simply do not care about its welfare.

As I said in my previous post, criticism itself is no vice. A person who fears that a policy will do harm to America has a duty to speak up and to (peacefully) act to prevent such a policy from being enacted. The person who fears that Obama will fail (and has intellectually responsible reasons for doing so) is not worthy of criticism.

However, the person who hopes that Obama fails is somebody who hopes that America fails.

I am not the one saying that Limbaugh is hoping for America's failure. Those words came straight from them.

20 comments:

I would have thought that the proper response to being a Republican right now would be to regroup, plan and plot, work along with every policy they can, and continue fighting for the things they care about. Then if there is a failure, they can say "I told you so" and get back into power. Otherwise, they'll be rightly accused of subverting not only the country and the president, but a perfectly good approach to running a government. We've got to get over this fear of socialism. Europe is chugging along pretty well despite having implemented methods that Republicans would consider socialistic.

The key word you're leaving out is "if." He clearly said "if" his policies are far-left, socialist policies, then he hopes they fail. That is quite a bit different than hoping that President Obama flat-out fails. Socialism as a form of government has proven to not work, even if certain social programs can have success. "If" Obama's policies are that that can be considered socialist, I too hope they fail. America is better than that. "If" his policies are in line with the things that belong in a true Republic, I hope they succeed, and I'm quite certain Rush would feel the same way. You quoted the quote right, then proceeded to make an argument about something that he didn't say.

I thought we already were a capitalist/socialist country (social security, medicare, welfare, state disability funds).

Sweden is even more socialist than the U.S., and they actually have a rather high standard of living. At least that's what visitors from Sweden have told me. The UK and Canada are also more socialistic than we; they have universal health care.

We're not a capitalist/socialist country, we're a capitalist republic that uses a few social programs. There is a big difference between a socialist country and a country that has social programs.

When it comes to getting actual treatment, universal health care is a massive failure everywhere it exists. I too would like to have free or cheap health care, but universal health care is not the answer. Socialism and social programs are different.

What Cuba and China have are socialist governments. The government makes all of your decisions, the redistribute wealth, making individual success non-existent. It kills "the American Dream." Squashing freedom of speech (Fairness Doctrine, etc.) is the kind of thing that you'll find in socialist countries. Do you enjoy posting comments on websites? They don't in China because you can't.

Social programs in and of themselves are not terrible, but when an entire nation has only social programs, you end up with a socialist nation. That is what Rush's fight is against (in my opinion). It is keeping America from walking too far down this road to the point that the basis of our government and our way of life is forever changed.

I don't necessarily agree that President Obama is a socialist and will turn America into a socialist country, but I do understand where the argument is coming from.

And if Sweden, Canada and the UK are all more socialist than the US, how is that a good thing? They may be, but as far as I know, none of them are considered the most successful or powerful nation in the world, as the United States is. When people get sick in any of those countries, where do they want to be, home or here? Most of them would choose the US because even though it's more expensive, the health care here is better than the rest of the world.

And yes, social security, medicare, welfare are all social programs, but just how well are they working? It may make you feel all warm and fuzzy to think that your taxes are going to the needy, but really, they're just prolonging bad situations. The answer to poverty isn't handouts, and there is a reason that welfare, medicare and social security are hot topics in each election -- they're not the best solution and for the most part, they're not working.

I apologize for writing a book in the comments section, but I feel that the argument needs to have both sides to understand it. I'm not afraid of an Obama socialized nation, because I think it's mostly hyperbole, but there is no doubt that many of his ideas fall into the category of socialist, and if someone wants to hope that those policies fail for the greater good of our nation in the long run, I think that is an acceptable position to have.

Continuing with the airplane analogy, imagine if you'd been saying for quite some time that "Because the mechanic is using a Smith and Smith engine, I fear that the plane will crash . . . but I hope it does not."

Now, despite all of your best efforts to warn of this impending disaster, still about 65 million people start to think that this time the Smith and Smith engine will work.

Now, considering that there is no aspect of any of these "socialist" ideas that would result directly in death (like the plane crash would), couldn't you make the argument that it is better for an unmanned plane to crash (killing no one directly) to prove to the 65 million people that these engines just don't work, so that the future of aircraft could move on with better engines?

I like the analogy, but I still think that the "if" makes a world of difference. There is far too much historical proof that socialism doesn't work as a form of government to get on board with the "let's give it another try" mentality. Again, I'm not saying that Obama is a socialist, I'm just trying to defend the original argument to some extent. If failure is what it will take to get good ideas back to the front of the line, then failure could be something that you can want (assuming failure does not in and of itself equal disaster and death).

Alonzo, not only do I agree with you completely on this, but I'd go a bit further.

Why does Limbaugh want Obama's so-called "socialist" policies (apparently, everything but "tax cuts to oil barons" is "socialist" these days...) to fail? Because the worst thing for his ego would be if they succeeded. It would prove him wrong.

Suppose that after Limbaugh spent years telling people that "socialism" is the bogeyman, some "socialism" is implemented, it works, and people's lives improve -- much like in countries such as Sweden. That would simply not do. Better for America to go down in flames than that!

If Rush had any morality at all, even if he's ideologically opposed to "socialism" and liberalism, if those policies were implemented, he'd rather be proved wrong than have them fail. But that's not the case at all.

Using the airplane analogy, it would be as if Limbaugh was an airplane manufacturer, and the airline company is trying out a plane from his competition. So he says "I hope it crashes", because, if it doesn't, it will prove that the competition's planes are at least as good. Simply unacceptable, to him -- lives be damned!

Also, if Limbaugh truly believed what he preaches, he wouldn't have to hope Obama's "socialist" policies would fail; he'd know they'd fail, because according to him and his ilk, liberalism and "socialism" don't work, and only make things worse. He wouldn't need to "hope"; he'd simply know, and wouldn't have to do more than say "I told you so", later.

But that is not the case here. His hoping that liberal policies fail proves that the possibility of their success is his greatest fear. It would put the lie to all of his and his colleagues' conservative gospel. It would diminish or even vanquish the bogeyman of liberalism and "socialism", still so present in America. I'd say that this dread keeps people like him awake at night.

. . .none of them are considered the most successful or powerful nation in the world, as the United States is

Perhaps you should consider that your success is based on an illusion and you are buying into your own manufactured illusions. If success and power are judged by how much you owe the rest of the world, you are certainly correct but I thought that Alonzo's thrust for this blog related to "morality" and our world doesn't look at US America as being a very moral nation. For example, the figures may vary depending on your source (or politics) but the fact is that every man, woman and child in US America owes the rest of the world about $3,000 or about $10,000 a household. Power and greatness comes at a price and, in case you haven't noticed, US America isn't paying its bill. And please, please do not mention your foreign aid!!! Don't forget that when you give $10 million to some poor Third World country (preferably one with oil), you are giving them a $10 million credit with which to buy US goods and services, mostly at inflated prices. (US American consultants don't come cheap!)Frankly, our world is getting tired of US America claiming its so great. You can say all you want about the socialism of Canada, Sweden etc. but there is the fact that one should "get the most bang for their buck" and their citizens do -- they also get educated, by the state, to much higher level than in US America. It is acknowledged that US America is ranked around 20th when it comes to mathematics. (I would really like to see a statistic of "how many of your gifted students" are "foreign born" or the children of "foreign born people".) Their drive for excellence may not be coming from being a part of mainstream US America, but rather your because they are foreign imports . . . just like your automobiles, clothing, decorations, etc. If a ranking on other subjects like geography and history, US America wouldn't do any better. In fact, most would say that on "history", US America would be down around 40th if the list went that far!

Instead of believing all of bullshit about US America's supremacy, why not get educated? If US America really cared, it would care how educated foreigners perceive US American morality and values! US Americans beam with pride when the street kids of the world love their Hershey Bar handouts. I am certain that those handouts would be just as appreciated by needy kids all over US America . . . but seldom, if ever, are they "visited" by well-to-do fellow citizens.

God and State said: "When it comes to getting actual treatment, universal health care is a massive failure everywhere it exists."

I realize the socialized health care systems in other countries have their problems, but I'm not convinced they are "a massive failure." I personally know people here in the U.S. who can't afford health insurance, and they and their children are suffering because of that fact, along with millions of others. I think any country that bills itself as the "most powerful" or "most successful" certainly has a moral obligation to make sure that at least its own citizens aren't unnecessarily suffering from lack of medical care.

"What Cuba and China have are socialist governments. The government makes all of your decisions, the redistribute wealth, making individual success non-existent"

I think the word you're looking for here is "communist."

"It kills "the American Dream." Squashing freedom of speech (Fairness Doctrine, etc.) is the kind of thing that you'll find in socialist countries."

Followed by the word "dictatorship." Governments can be socialistic and democratic, without being communist and dictatorial.

Our current form of capitalism has allowed an immoral imbalance in wealth and power to develop in the population, as well as put that population and its future generations deeply in debt. The American Dream is crashing at the moment because it has been based, in recent decades, on credit and cheap foreign labor (the quality of life of that labor force being a moral issue in itself). It's left a lot of people asking, "How can we be out of American Dream money; we still have checks left!?"

"When people get sick in any of those countries [Sweden, Canada], where do they want to be, home or here? Most of them would choose the US because even though it's more expensive, the health care here is better than the rest of the world."

For those who can afford it. Which is fewer and fewer in the very country that is offering that "better than the rest of the world" health care. The widening gap between rich and poor, and the fact that the middle class is being pushed toward the poorer end of the spectrum, is part of what's making universal health care such a pressing issue in this country. Unless Limbaugh is going to figure a way to reinvigorate our economy, when the methods he and his right wing cohorts have promoted (e.g. free markets, whatever that really means) are failing, he's just muttering to himself. Something has to change in this country, for economic and moral reasons.

"And yes, social security, medicare, welfare are all social programs, but just how well are they working? It may make you feel all warm and fuzzy to think that your taxes are going to the needy, but really, they're just prolonging bad situations."

You've lost me here. Social security and medicare go to my aging parents so they don't suffer from hunger, lack of housing, and treatable medical conditions. I'll need those services when I'm old and infirm someday myself, and the received wisdom of counting on the stock market to power retirement accounts isn't working out so well. Just ask practically anyone who is nearing 65. I'm glad my taxes are going to these programs, and am interested in improving them if possible.

Certainly, there are many on welfare who are generational recipients. That's a social problem in itself. However, when I was a boy my father was temporarily out of work from his union job, and I was glad that food stamps were available to help us through. Later, my single mother's use of the WIC program put milk and cheese in our refrigerator.

"The answer to poverty isn't handouts, and there is a reason that welfare, medicare and social security are hot topics in each election -- they're not the best solution and for the most part, they're not working."

What do you propose as alternatives to these three programs that would still fulfill the moral obligations these programs were created to meet?

"I'm not afraid of an Obama socialized nation, because I think it's mostly hyperbole, but there is no doubt that many of his ideas fall into the category of socialist, and if someone wants to hope that those policies fail for the greater good of our nation in the long run, I think that is an acceptable position to have."

What do you mean by greater good? And how is the pain and suffering that would certainly result from a failure of future social policies result in that greater good? I mean other than having everyone go running back to Limbaugh and his ilk, having already forgotten how well their favorite policies haven't worked.

The reason many people despise Rush isn't so much about his politics, it's about his tactics. Lies, bullying, promoting hatred - these are despicable.

Also, while it's good to fight to keep America from going too far down the socialism path, I think the opposite is the problem right now. America has been pulled way too far in the "business can do no wrong" direction, and now needs a few people to fight to pull the country back a bit towards the social-justice side of the scale.

A few points I want to address -

When people get sick in any of those countries, where do they want to be, home or here? Most of them would choose the US

I think you need some statistics to back this up. Recently Americans have been travelling abroad for medical procedures, to places they can afford to have them (and that's after the cost of travel...). I would wager that most people would rather get some care than none (since they can't afford it). Therefore, unless you are very rich, it's better to be in any of those other countries than in the US if you get sick.

And if Sweden, Canada and the UK are all more socialist than the US, how is that a good thing?

I don't think the arguement was "more socialist = good". The arguement was "that country is better in respects X, Y & Z, and they are socialist. Thus socialism can be beneficial in those respects."

welfare, medicare and social security ... they're not the best solution and for the most part, they're not working.

If the money spent on these programs was instead used for better programs that work well (something I'm sure we'd all support) - wouldn't those programs STILL be social programs funded by the government? Does that still make them socialist and bad?

"What Cuba and China have are socialist governments. The government makes all of your decisions, the redistribute wealth, making individual success non-existent"

I think the word you're looking for here is "communist."

Thank you for the education, but actually the phrase I was going for was "Socialist Republic," which is exactly what China and Cuba are, as run by communist leaders. Don't try to educate me about facts when I'm the one that is right. China and Cuba are not communist nations, they are socialist nations that are run by communists. There is a difference.

If you want to live like the people in China, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela, then by all means, get on board with socialism.

And if you're familiar with the works of Marx, he makes it clear that the first step to replacing capitalism is with socialism, which is then replaced by communism.

I don't fear we are living in, or about to live in a socialist nation because we are smarter than that here.

Suppose that after Limbaugh spent years telling people that "socialism" is the bogeyman, some "socialism" is implemented, it works, and people's lives improve -- much like in countries such as Sweden. That would simply not do. Better for America to go down in flames than that!

Are you really that misguided on the history of socialism? Are you really going to give me the "well let's give it a shot" attitude? Do you really believe that socialism is just the bogeyman to the conservatives in this country? If you do, then we are in more trouble then any of us could have assumed.

Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. There is a reason people don't want a socialist country here. It will not work. Sure, it will work in the sense that everybody will have health care and maybe a place to live and the "elected" officials will be rich as they could ever imagine, but the entire population would also be living in the equivalent of the ghetto. Look at the living conditions in North Korea and Cuba and tell me that socialism is doing good things there. Tell me that that is the life that you envision over what you currently have access to.

And for the record, the social democracy that was in power in Sweden has been run out of power due to poor economic performances -- translation: FAILURE. And the Economist ranked Sweden as the number one democracy in the world. Terrible example of socialism, or socialist policy, in 2009.

Instead of believing all of bullshit about US America's supremacy, why not get educated? If US America really cared, it would care how educated foreigners perceive US American morality and values! US Americans beam with pride when the street kids of the world love their Hershey Bar handouts. I am certain that those handouts would be just as appreciated by needy kids all over US America . . . but seldom, if ever, are they "visited" by well-to-do fellow citizens.

So I should ignore that this is the richest country in the world, the most technologically advanced country in the world, and has the strongest military in the world, and instead say that we are not the most successful and powerful nation because kids in other countries don't think so? Call me narrow-minded, but I don't give a shit what people in other countries think. Sure, I'd like for America to be liked, I think that is very important. But it is not a measuring stick for the power and success of the US. If your definition of power and success is how we are judged by other nations, then we just have different definitions. I'll stick with, oh I don't know, who's got the most power and who's been the most successful. But call me crazy for measuring in such a way.

Look, I thought this was an interesting article, but I thought that the quote from Rush was taken a bit out of context. I have no problem debating the merits of that issue. But if everyone on here is going to try to lecture me about the merits of socialism, then I'll just go enjoy my free speech elsewhere. Alonzo, I'll continue to read you posts, but apparently I only fit in here for religious reasons. I had no idea that so many of my fellow atheists were so supportive of socialism as a form of government. I think most of the people in the comments section could use a nice, long history lesson.

God and State said:"Don't try to educate me about facts when I'm the one that is right. China and Cuba are not communist nations, they are socialist nations that are run by communists. There is a difference."

So the entries for Cuba and China in the CIA World Factbook need to be rewritten? Maybe I'm still not understanding you since you didn't elaborate on those differences?

"If you want to live like the people in China, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela, then by all means, get on board with socialism.

No, I want to continue living in a constitutional, democratic republic that will become more focused on taking care of its citizens than making a mountain of what's turned out to be imaginary wealth (China owns a significant portion of the national debt my grandchildren will be paying). This type of capitalism isn't working.

"And if you're familiar with the works of Marx, he makes it clear that the first step to replacing capitalism is with socialism, which is then replaced by communism."

Wait. Socialism means I'd have to live like people in China because socialism is the first step toward communism, but China isn't actually communist; its socialist because its just the government that's communist, but... Any chance of you defining your terms (socialism is a very broad term), or responding to my previous statement that governments can be both democratic and socialistic without being communistic and dictatorial?

"I don't fear we are living in, or about to live in a socialist nation because we are smarter than that here."

The U.S. government has already used public money to buy part of the banking and finance industry, the largest revenue generating sector in the country, but without the people who will be paying the bills having any of the rights of ownership. All the collective spending of pure socialism without any of the voting rights or oversight privileges. We've paid the financial price of socialism, but got screwed on the rewards of ownership. Please tell me how we're "smarter than that here."

You decry the merits of social programs, but don't offer any ideas for alternatives; say universal health care won't work, but don't say what will; claim socialistic policies will automatically lead to dictatorial communism, but offer no arguments; say you're right about the differences between communism and socialism (democratic socialism, market socialism, Libertarian socialism?), but don't define your terms beyond naming countries with regimes that emerged from feudalism rather than a democratic republic like the U.S.

I appreciate the difficulty of carrying on this kind of discourse in blog comments, but if you show up with nothing more than Fox News talking points to offer...

So the entries for Cuba and China in the CIA World Factbook need to be rewritten? Maybe I'm still not understanding you since you didn't elaborate on those differences?

Communism is a political system, socialism is an economic ideology. The countries I mentioned are all governed according to communist principles, and they instill socialist ideologies. Perhaps you should ask the CIA Factbook to clear that up.

I understand that all of these terms can be quite broad, and this really isn't the best forum for any type of debate, but alas, this is where we meet.

As for your statement that governments can be both democratic and socialistic without being communistic, I won't argue with you. It doesn't mean that it is ideal. It also doesn't mean that they are destined to become dictatorial.

My point is that if President Obama enacts a large number of policies that one would consider "socialist" policies, and he does so against the will and arguments of others who are warning him of the effects of such policies, and a situation could be presented where the failure of such a policy would lead to better policies without people being directly hurt in the process, that is an acceptable argument to make.

I have nothing against social programs, I am against the idea of a government based on social programs. I think the health system we have here is great, but too expensive. I think that reform in the insurance industry is step one to lowering costs, and I would completely support government subsidies to create more free or low cost health clinics. For basic treatments (cold, infection, etc.) there is no need for the high costs of doctor visits. I am completely supportive of the creation (with the help of the government) of affordable alternatives in the medical field. But the basis of our health care system should be kept in place.

The U.S. government has already used public money to buy part of the banking and finance industry, the largest revenue generating sector in the country, but without the people who will be paying the bills having any of the rights of ownership. All the collective spending of pure socialism without any of the voting rights or oversight privileges. We've paid the financial price of socialism, but got screwed on the rewards of ownership. Please tell me how we're "smarter than that here."

You're absolutely right about that, and I don't agree at all with what has recently transpired in that regard. But you must remember that the people that passed all of that spending and buying are the same ones that President Obama is counting on to go even further.

And I appreciate the typical liberal reaction to a different point of view that I am just spitting out Fox News talking points. If I were a Fox News/right-wing nut, how would I have found you on an atheist blog. Perhaps because I'm not one of them?

Like you said, there are broad definitions for some of the terms we're debating over, and it's pretty clear that we see them differently. Nevertheless, it's always informative and entertaining to expose to others and be exposed to different views. If these answers can't be answered in the thousands of times they've been debated and tried in the offline world, I have a hard time thinking that we're going to solve this in the comments section of a blog. But it's worth a try.

So I should ignore that this is the richest country in the world, the most technologically advanced country in the world, and has the strongest military in the world,

I am not asking you to ignore your facts, just quite being such a big bully!!! With regard to your technological standing, you might consider that the scientists who advanced your situation, for the most part, were educated elsewhere!

Call me narrow-minded, but I don't give a shit what people in other countries think.

Spoken like a true US American!!!

Lets hope you or your children don't have to learn Chinese in order to get your food stamps!!

I am not asking you to ignore your facts, just quite being such a big bully!!! With regard to your technological standing, you might consider that the scientists who advanced your situation, for the most part, were educated elsewhere!

I'm not trying to be a bully, so if I come off as such, I apologize. Sometimes it's a bit overwhelming to look through the comments and see everyone trying to fight one person and twist my words.

As for the education and technology, sure some of our great technological minds were educated elsewhere -- the majority were not. And even if they were, it says a whole lot that after they got their education, this is the nation they came to have the freedom to exercise what they learned -- as well as the money to be invested in their great projects.

Spoken like a true US American!!!

Lets hope you or your children don't have to learn Chinese in order to get your food stamps!!

I obviously would like to be well received by other countries and have Americans loved around the world, but I think that is a poor measuring stick to gauge how successful the United States is. Our priority should be doing what's right for the United States first and foremost, and it's up to the rest of the world to choose to like us or not. Our domestic policy should not be based on what it will do to the opinions of non-Americans.

God and State: both Alonzo's post and my reply weren't about whether socialism is a good idea or not; you'll note that neither of us defended it. You'll also note that I always wrote "socialism" with quotes, because I'm not referring to socialism at all, but to Rush & co.'s distorted definition of it, namely "anything except tax cuts to oil barons".

If Limbaugh had meant that he hoped Obama wasn't successful in implementing policies Rush describe as "socialist" (say, they were blocked by Congress), I might disagree with him, but he wouldn't have been immoral. But I think that his point was different: he wanted those policies to fail, that is, if you're not using my "brand" of policies, then I hope America goes to hell. That's immoral, in my opinion.

Our domestic policy should not be based on what it will do to the opinions of non-Americans.

George Bush stated that it would join in attempts to stop global warming "as long as they didn't compromise the US economy!!" Your domestic policies, unfortunately, spill over to the rest of the world. Its like dancing with someone who keeps stepping on your toes and refuses to heed your complaints because they are having so much fun.

If US America wants to be part of a global community, it better start caring about how the rest of the world reacts to some of its "self-serving" actions or in-actions.

I would agree with you that the intelligentsia have gravitated to the US because that is where the "money" is, or at least, where the "money" was. I believe that if you check into it, US America is no longer such a desirable destination.

About Me

When I was in high school, I decided that I wanted to leave the world better off than it would have been if I had not existed. This started a quest, through 12 years of college and on to today, to try to discover what a "better" world consists of. I have written a book describing that journey that you can find on my website. In this blog, I will keep track of the issues I have confronted since then.